Between fat acceptance, the recent "feminism" fad, participation only sports, and the idiotic need to label every self identifying sexual based group out there, America is quickly going the way of the Romans.

We spend billions watching tv to partake in violence and beauty, and over indulge in food, liquor, and porn at every chance, all while evolving into a culture of pacifist who label anything that hurts our feelings as either racist, prejudice, or a hate crime.

The internet has allowed the sheep to gather in mass and propagate their uneducated opinions, and they gain validation through "thumbs up" icons. The danger of this is that the youth also read this bullshit on social media but accept it as the norm, and then follow suit.

If I don't like how someone looks, though, that's my problem; no one is required to look the way I think they should to please my delicate eyes. Aesthetically, they can look however they want, and if I don't like it, I can look somewhere else.

Overweightness is a legitimate national-scale problem because of public health issues, not because there's some sort of an attractiveness deficiency.

Generally doing away with gender-based discrimination - the idea that women belong in the kitchen, Old Boys' Club thinking at work, political inequality, outright violence against women, and questioning pop-culture mores like why so few movies feature women in lead roles. That kind of thing.

It's generally just about treating women with, well, equality. It's generally not that complicated a thing, but it sure becomes so - like, for example, when the Take-It-Too-Far crowd starts spouting off on the Internet, and their bizarre rants get presented as if they're the norm.

You seem to want to water "feminism" down to the extent that even most conservatives would qualify as feminists. IMO, that's as wrong as limiting it to the man-hating fringe.

MS. SOMMERS: The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric of male-bashing that it's full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also, women are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a philosopher is it's become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a serious risk to young women in the universities. Women's studies classes are increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most intolerant wing, of the feminist movement. And I consider myself a whistle-blower. I'm from inside the campus. I teach philosophy. I've seen what's been going on.

MR. WATTENBERG: Camille, what has feminism become?

MS. PAGLIA: Well, I have been an ardent feminist since the rebirth of the current feminist movement. I'm on the record as being -- as rebelling against my gender-role, as being an open lesbian and so on. In the early 1960s I was researching Amelia Earhart, who for me symbolized the great period of feminism of the '20s and '30s just after women won the right to vote. When this phase of feminism kicked back in the late '60s, it was very positive at first. Women drew the line against men and demanded equal rights. I am an equal opportunity feminist. But very soon it degenerated into a kind of totalitarian 'group think' that we are only now rectifying 20 years later.

MR. WATTENBERG: Is this the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism? Is that what we're talking about?

MS. SOMMERS: That's right. Yes.

MR. WATTENBERG: Could you sort of explain that so that we get our terms right?

MS. SOMMERS: An equity feminist -- and Camille and I both are equity feminists --is you want for women what you want for everyone: fair treatment, no discrimination. A gender feminist, on the other hand, is someone like the current leaders in the feminist movement: Patricia Ireland and Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi and Eleanor Smeal. They believe that women are trapped in what they call a sex-gender system, a patriarchal hegemony; that contemporary American women are in the thrall to men, to male culture. And it's so silly. It has no basis in American reality. No women have ever had more opportunities, more freedom, and more equality than contemporary American women. And at that moment the movement becomes more bitter and more angry. Why are they so angry?

MS. PAGLIA: Mmm-hmm. (In agreement.) This is correct. In otherwords, I think that the current feminist movement has taken credit for a lot of the enormous changes in women's lives that my generation of the '60s wrought. There were women in the mid '60s when I was in college who did not go on to become feminists. They were baudy and feisty and robust. Barbra Streisand is a kind of example of a kind of pre-feminist woman that changed the modern world and so on.

Now, I think that again what we need to do now is to get rid ofthe totalitarians, get rid of the Kremlin mentality --

So it sounds to me like you're using "feminist" to mean more of what Sommers and Paglia call "equity feminists" while GoChiefs is talking more about what they call "gender feminists". I don't think GoChiefs characterizations are as fringe as you make them out to be, but I think you're right that they don't represent mainstream thinking of American women in general (and non-chauvinist men) either.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Well, 164K+ actually.
Yeah, but when you look at it as 38+posts every single day for 12 1/2 years...holy shit...

Add who knows how many on War Paint where he I heard he was a mod if you added those posts that number would be much larger~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

One of the lessons that Andrew Lampart learned from being on his school’s debate team was to gather facts for both sides of an argument. So last month when his law class was instructed to prepare for a debate on gun control, Andrew went online using the school’s Internet service.

“I knew it was important to get facts for both sides of the case,” said the 18-year-old at Nonnewaug High School in Woodbury, Connecticut.

Andrew decided to set aside his debate preparation and started researching other conservative websites. He soon discovered that he had unfettered access to liberal websites, but conservative websites were blocked.

When Andrew tried to log onto the National Rifle Association’s website, he realized there was a problem – a big problem.

“Their website was blocked,” he told me. Andrew decided to try the Second Amendment Foundation’s website. That too, was blocked.

His curiosity got the best of him – so Andrew tried logging on to several pro-gun control websites. Imagine his surprise when he discovered the pro-gun control websites were not blocked.

“I became curious as to why one side was blocked and the other side was not,” he said.
Andrew decided to set aside his debate preparation and started researching other conservative websites. He soon discovered that he had unfettered access to liberal websites, but conservative websites were blocked.

For example, the Connecticut Republican Party website was blocked. The Connecticut Democratic Party website was not blocked. National Right to Life was blocked, but Planned Parenthood was not blocked. Connecticut Family, a pro-traditional marriage group, was blocked, but LGBT Nation was not blocked.

Andrew found that even Pope Francis was blocked from the school’s web service. But although he could not access the Vatican website, the school allowed him to access an Islamic website.

“This is really border line indoctrination,” Andrew told me. “Schools are supposed to be fair and balanced towards all ways of thinking. It’s supposed to encourage students to formulate their own opinions. Students aren’t able to do that here at the school because they are only being fed one side of the issue.”

Andrew gathered his evidence and requested a meeting with the principal. The principal referred him to the superintendent, which he did. The superintendent promised to look into the matter and fix the problem.

“I gave him a week to fix the problem,” Andrew said. “But nothing had been done.”

So last Monday, Andrew took his mountain of evidence to the school board.

“They seemed surprised,” he said. “They told me they were going to look into the problem.”
Since the school board didn’t resolve the problem, I decided to take a crack at it.

Superintendent Jody Goeler sent me a rather lengthy letter explaining what happened.

He admitted there are “apparent inconsistencies” in the school district’s filtering system “particularly along conservative and liberal lines.”

“Many of the liberal sites accessible to the student fell into the ‘not rated’ category, which was unblocked while many of the conservative sites were in the ‘political/advocacy group’ category which is accessible to teachers but not to students,” he said in a written statement. “The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider.”

I find it hard to believe the superintendent needs more evidence to make that determination.
“The district does not block individual sites, only categories of websites,” he wrote. “The categories are supposed to be inclusive of all sites that fall into a common description.”

Without getting into the weeds here, the school district is blaming the blocking on Dell SonicWall, their content filtering service. They said they are waiting for Dell SonicWall to clarify its process for assigning websites to categories.

Dell SonicWall did not return my telephone call so I can’t tell you whether the district’s statement is the gospel truth or baloney. But something smells fishy.

Superintendent Goeler said they have “an interest in exposing students to a wide and varying number of viewpoints."

“The district does engage in unblocking sites to provide diverse points of view and balance in the instructional process,” he wrote.

Pardon me, sir, but that’s a load of unadulterated, Grade-A hooey.

The National Rifle Association, Red State, SarahPac.com, National Right to Life, Second Amendment Foundation, Paul Ryan for Congress, Town Hall, TeaParty.org, ProtectMarriage.com, and Christianity.com are just some of the websites the school blocked.

And they still remain blocked.

“The thing that bothers me the most is that public education is supposed to be neutral,” Andrew said. “It’s supposed to expose kids to both sides of an issue and allow them to formulate their own opinions.”

Andrew has discovered the issue I write about in my new book, “gawd Less America.” Public schools have become leftwing indoctrination centers.

“Students are only being given information from one side of the issue,” he said. “They are told this is the information we are giving you – make the most of it. They are not giving them both sides of the argument.”

Andrew Lampart has done his community and his nation a great public service by exposing the politically correct firewall that was erected at Nonnewaug High School.

And now we must do our part and demand a free exchange of ideas not just in Woodbury, Connecticut, but around the nation.

Mr. Superintendent, tear down this wall!

__________________

Quote:

"So I asked him, what is it with you son, ignorance or apathy?" And he said, "coach, I don't know and I don't care."Frank Layden former coach of the Utah Jazz